SUMMARY / RELATED TOPICS

Remember Me (2010 film)

Remember Me is a 2010 American romantic coming-of-age drama film directed by Allen Coulter, screenplay by Will Fetters. It stars Robert Pattinson, Emilie de Ravin, Chris Cooper, Lena Olin, Pierce Brosnan, it received negative reviews from critics due to the ending. In New York City in 1991, Alyssa "Ally" Craig is waiting with her mother for the subway, when they are mugged by two young men, who shoot her mother after boarding the train. Ten years Ally is a student at New York University, lives with her father, Neil, a New York Police Department detective. Tyler Hawkins works at the university bookstore, he has a strained relationship with his workaholic businessman father, because his older brother, died by suicide years before. Charles ignores Caroline, of whom Tyler is protective. One night, with his roommate, Tyler gets involved in somebody else's fight, is arrested by Neil. Aidan calls Charles to bail Tyler out, but he does not stick around to have a conversation with his father. Aidan sees Neil realizing that she is his daughter.

He approaches Tyler with the idea to get back at the detective by persuading him to sleep with and dump Ally. Tyler and Ally go to dinner, kiss at the end of the night, continue seeing one another. While at Tyler's apartment, Aidan convinces the pair to go to a party, after which Ally is drunk, ends up throwing up, she passes out. The following day and her father argue. Neil slaps her, Ally flees back to Tyler's apartment. Caroline, a budding artist, is featured in an art show, Tyler asks his father to attend the show; when he fails to show up, Tyler confronts him in a board room filled with people, which causes his father's frustration to boil over. Neil's partner recognizes Tyler with Ally on a train, so Neil breaks into Tyler's apartment, confronts him. Tyler provokes Neil by confessing to Aidan's plan and his initial reason for meeting Ally, which forces Tyler to confess to Ally, she returns home. Aidan visits Ally at her father's home to explain that he is to blame, Tyler is genuinely in love with her.

Caroline is bullied by classmates at a birthday party. Ally and Aidan visit Tyler's mother's apartment. Tyler accompanies his sister back to school, when her classmates tease her for her new haircut, Tyler turns violent, ends up in jail. Charles is impressed that Tyler stood up for his sister, they connect. Charles asks Tyler to meet with the lawyers at his office. Tyler spends the night with Ally, they reveal they love each other after making love. Charles takes Caroline to school, he calls Tyler to let him know this, explains that he will be late. Tyler is happy, he tells Charles. He looks on Charles's computer, featuring a slideshow of pictures with Tyler and Caroline when they were younger. After Charles drops Caroline off at school, she sits in her classroom, where the teacher writes the date on the blackboard as September 11, 2001. Tyler looks out the window of his father's office, revealed to be located on the 101st floor of the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Once the terrorist attacks begin, the rest of the family and Ally, look at the towers before the camera pans over the rubble, showing Tyler's diary.

In a voice-over of his diary, Tyler reveals to Michael that he loves him, he forgives him for killing himself. Tyler is buried next to Michael; some time Caroline and Charles seem to have a healthy father-daughter relationship. Aidan, who has since gotten a tattoo of Tyler's name on his arm, is working hard in school, Ally gets on the subway at the same spot where her mother was killed. Robert Pattinson as Tyler Keats Hawkins Emilie de Ravin as Alyssa "Ally" Craig Chris Cooper as Neil Craig, Ally's father Lena Olin as Diane Hirsch and Caroline's mother Pierce Brosnan as Charles Hawkins and Caroline's father Martha Plimpton as Helen Craig, Ally's mother Ruby Jerins as Caroline Hawkins, Tyler's younger sister Gregory Jbara as Les Hirsch, Diane's new partner Tate Ellington as Aidan Hall, Tyler's roommate and best friend Kate Burton as Janine, Charles' executive assistant Peyton List as Samantha Chris McKinney as Leo Meghan Markle as Megan The film premiered on March 1, 2010, at the Paris Theatre in New York City, received its wide release on March 12, 2010.

It is rated 12A in the PG-13 in the United States. Summit Entertainment announced the DVD and Blu-ray release of June 22, 2010. Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a "Rotten" rating of 27% based on 108 reviews; the site's consensus states, "Its leads are likeable, but Remember Me suffers from an overly maudlin script and a borderline offensive final twist." Metacritic gives it a score of 40 out of 100, based on reviews from 29 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Todd McCarthy gave the film a mixed review in Variety, writing "The modestly scaled film delivers some moving and affecting moments amid a preponderance of scenes of annoying people behaving badly." Andrea Gronvall gave a similar assessment in The Chicago Reader, writing "Allen Coulter directed this morose and sluggish drama, which gets more mileage from Pattinson's anguished profile than from Will Fetters's thunderously overwritten screenplay." Derek Malcolm wrote in This Is London, "Decently shot and directed as it is, it lacks any real flame."

Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter gave the film a positive review, stating the "scenes between Pattinson and de Ravin exude genuine charm." Honeycutt goes on to say that the score and cinemato

Frans Van Looy

Frans Van Looy was a Belgian cyclist. Looy was professional from 1972 to 1982, he competed in the individual road race at the 1972 Summer Olympics. After his career as a cyclist, Van Looy worked as a team manager with Team Telekom and T-Mobile until 2006. and had helped run his family's farm in Merksem. However, a local government order ruled that Van Looy could no longer live at the farm, despite a petition signed by 3,000 people to preserve the residence that Van Looy had been born in. After this order, which ruled his birthplace to be uninhabitable and lead to his eviction, he committed suicide in September 2019. 1974 3rd stage of Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré Schaal Sels Nationale Sluitingsprijs 1977 Nokere Koerse Nationale Sluitingsprijs 1978 Omloop van het Waasland Grote Prijs Jef Scherens 3rd stage of Volta a Catalunya 3rd stage of Three Days of De Panne 1979 Nationale Sluitingsprijs 1980 Halle–Ingooigem 1972: Novy - Dubble Bubble 1973: Novy - Romy 1974: Flandria - Carpenter 1975-76: Molteni 1977: Maes - Mini Flat 1978: Mini Flat - Boule d'Or 1979: KAS - Campagnolo 1980: Mini Flat - Vermeer Thijs 1981: Vermeer Thijs 1982: Europ Decor Frans Van Looy at Cycling Archives

United States v. Marcum

United States of America v. Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, 60 M. J. 198 is a United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces decision which, among other issues, upheld Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice against a facial substantive due process challenge, ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 applied in analyzing as-applied challenges. The decision is thus binding precedent on all courts-martial in determining if an Article 125 prosecution is constitutional; the appellant, United States Air Force Technical Sergeant Eric P. Marcum, a cryptologic linguist assigned to Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, was tried by court-martial for "dereliction of duty by providing alcohol to individuals under the age of 21, non-forcible sodomy, forcible sodomy, assault consummated by a battery, indecent assault, three specifications of committing indecent acts". On May 21, 2000, Marcum was convicted of several charges, including non-forcible sodomy in violation of Article 125.

He was "sentenced to confinement for 10 years, a dishonorable discharge, total forfeitures, reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The convening authority reduced the confinement to six years, but otherwise approved the findings and sentence"; the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed sentence. After that, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Lawrence; the CAAF the reviewed the following issues: ISSUE I WHETHER APPELLANT SUFFERED PREJUDICIAL ERROR WHEN HIS TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL REVEALED PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS WITHOUT APPELLANT'S PERMISSION DURING THE SENTENCING PHASE OF APPELLANT'S TRIAL IN VIOLATION OF M. R. E. 502 AND 511. ISSUE II WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED BY INSTRUCTING THE PANEL THAT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE IN APPELLANT'S CASE WAS LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAD NOT AUTHORIZED THAT PUNISHMENT FOR APPELLANT'S OFFENSES. ISSUE III WHETHER APPELLANT'S CONVICTION FOR VIOLATING ARTICLE 125, UCMJ, BY ENGAGING IN CONSENSUAL SODOMY MUST BE SET ASIDE IN LIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S HOLDING IN LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, 123 S.

CT. 2472. In deciding the due process challenge, the Court first addressed the facial constitutional claim, rejecting it on the bases that "n the military setting, as this case demonstrates, an understanding of military culture and mission cautions against sweeping constitutional pronouncements that may not account for the nuance of military life" and that "because Article 125 addresses both forcible and non-forcible sodomy, a facial challenge reaches too far". Turning to the as-applied challenge, the Court asked "irst, was the conduct that the accused was found guilty of committing of a nature to bring it within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court? Second, did the conduct encompass any behavior or factors identified by the Supreme Court as outside the analysis in Lawrence?... Third, are there additional factors relevant in the military environment that affect the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest?" It proceeded to reject the as-applied due process challenge, on the bases that "the military has regulated relationships between servicemembers based on certain differences in grade in an effort to avoid partiality, preferential treatment, the improper use of one’s rank", that "this right must be tempered in a military setting based on the mission of the military, the need for obedience of orders, civilian supremacy", that the appellant "also testified that he knew he should not engage in a sexual relationship with someone he supervised".

Due to these factors, the "conduct fell outside the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court" and the challenge was rejected. The Court ruled that the appellant had suffered a prejudicial error when his trial counsel presented an unsworn statement that had revealed privileged communications without the appellant's permission, on the basis that "vidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is not admissible against the holder of the privilege if disclosure was compelled erroneously or was made without an opportunity for the holder of the privilege to claim the privilege" and that he "did not waive his attorney-client privilege. Appellant’s affidavit demonstrates that defense counsel never asked Appellant for permission to use the written summary", that "trial counsel referred to Appellant’s unsworn statement during his sentencing argument" On this basis, the Court reversed the sentence, authorizing a sentencing rehearing; the court said that "In light of our decision on Issue I, we need not decide whether life without parole was an authorized punishment for forcible sodomy at the time of Appellant’s offenses."

Chief Judge Crawford wrote a dissenting opinion. Concurring with the rejection of the due process challenge, the judge disagreed with the majority's assumption that the "Appellant’s conduct falls within the protected liberty interest enunciated in Lawrence." Chief Judge Crawford dissented from the decision to reverse the sentence on the basis that "defense counsel displayed his and Appellant’s intent to disclose the statement to a third party and, in so doing, established that the statement was not privileged", that because "defense counsel extensively used Appellant’s statement at trial to cross-examine Government witnesses", "Appellant cannot now claim that attorney-client privilege should have prevented the statement’s release", that "Appellant, by his own misconduct, forfeited any right to object to counsel’s use of the statement". Sodomy laws in the United States Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court case invalidating a Texas sodomy conviction on due process grounds. Don't ask, don't tell U